ORDER : – This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking following relief : – “(i) That, the orders impugned dated 5-5-2022 (Annexure P/1) passed by State Transport Appellate Tribunal in Case No. 33/2015 Appeal and in Case No. 94/2015 Revision and dated 15-12-2014 (Annexure P/2) passed by the State Transport Authority may kindly be quashed. (i) That, the respondent No. 2 be directed to grant the permit to the petitioner for plying the vehicle on the route Shahdol to Allahabad as the petitioner is more meritorious than the other persons having sector experience. (ii) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case be granted to the petitioner doing justice in the matter. Costs be awarded.” 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for grant of permit for plying bus on the route from Shahdol to Allahabad and the permit has been wrongly granted to respondents No. 3 to 6. 3. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent/State. It is submitted that although the order has been passed by the authority functioning within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court but in the light of the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 , this Court can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in the light of forum conveniens. Shahdol falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat of this Court whereas Allahabad falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court. Therefore, the petitioner must approach any of the above-mentioned Court. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. This Court in the case of Moh. Abid Siddique vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, by order dated 28-9-2021 passed in W. P. No. 19264/2021 has held as under : – “According to the petitioner, the counter signature is to be signed by STA UP. It is true that since the petitioner is seeking stage carriage permit for Gwalior to Delhi route, and therefore, a part of cause of action may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but since for renewal of regular stage carriage permit is to be countersigned by the STA UP. It is true that since the petitioner is seeking stage carriage permit for Gwalior to Delhi route, and therefore, a part of cause of action may have arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court but since for renewal of regular stage carriage permit is to be countersigned by the STA UP. The Supreme Court in case of Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd. vs. Union of India, reported in (2004) 6 SCC 254 , has been held that merely because a small part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of High Court, the same by itself may not be considered to be a determinative factor compelling the High Court to decide the matter on merits. In appropriate cases, the Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens. Since the STA UP falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Allahabad High Court, therefore, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner that, if so advised, he can approach the Allahabad High Court for redressal of his grievance.” 6. The petitioner had applied for grant of permit on Shahdol to Allahabad route. His application has been rejected whereas the application filed by respondents No. 3 to 6 has been accepted. Shahdol undisputedly falls within the territorial jurisdiction of Principal Seat of this Court. 7. Accordingly, applying the principle of forum conveniens it is held that merely because small part of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the Court would not like to exercise its power. 8. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Principal Seat of this Court for redressal of his grievances.